Large Institution CRA Examination Procedures

OCC, FRB, FDIC and OTS- July 2007

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT

EXAMINATION PROCEDURES FOR LARGE INSTITUTIONS

Examination Scope

For institutions (interstate and intrastate) with more than one assessment area, identify assessment areas for a full scope review. A full scope review is accomplished when examiners complete all of the procedures for an assessment area. For interstate institutions, a minimum of one assessment area from each state, and a minimum of one assessment area from each multistate metropolitan statistical area/metropolitan division (MSA/MD), must be reviewed using the full scope examination procedures.

  1. Review prior CRA performance evaluations, available community contact materials, HMDA and CRA performance data including the institution's lending, investment, and service activities by assessment area, the lending of other lenders in those markets, and demographic information from those markets.
  1. Select assessment areas for full scope review by considering the factors below.

a. The lending, investment, and service opportunities in the different assessment areas, particularly areas where the need for bank credit, investments and services is significant;

b.The level of the institution's lending, investment, and service activity in the different assessment areas, including in low- and moderate-income areas, designated disaster areas, or distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies designated by the Agencies[1]based on (a) rates of poverty, unemployment, and population loss or (b) population size, density, and dispersion;[2]

c.The number of other institutions in the different assessment areas and the importance of the institution under examination in serving the different areas, particularly any areas with relatively few other providers of financial services;

d. Comments and feedback received from community groups and the public regarding the institution's CRA performance;

e. The size of the population;

  1. The existence of apparent anomalies in the reported CRA or HMDA data for any particular assessment area(s);
  1. The length of time since the assessment area(s) was last examined using a full scope review;

h. The institution's prior CRA performance in different assessment areas;

i.Examiners’ knowledge of the same or similar assessment areas; and

j.Issues raised during CRA examinations of other institutions and prior community contacts in the institution's assessment areas or similar assessment areas.

Performance Context

  1. Review standardized worksheets and other agency information sources to obtain relevant demographic, economic, and loan data, to the extent available, for each assessment area under review. Compare the data to similar data for the MSA/MD, county, or state to determine how any similarities or differences will help in evaluating lending, investment, and service opportunities and community and economic conditions in the assessment area. Also consider whether the area has housing costs that are particularly high given area median income.
  1. Obtain for review the Consolidated Reports of Condition (Call Reports)/Thrift Financial Reports (TFR), Uniform Bank Performance Reports (UBPR)/Uniform Thrift Performance Reports (UTPR), annual reports, supervisory reports, and prior CRA evaluations of the institution under examination to help understand the institution’s ability and capacity, including any limitations imposed by size, financial condition, or statutory, regulatory, economic or other constraints, to respond to safe and sound opportunities in the assessment area(s) for retail loans, and community development loans, investments and services.
  1. Discuss with the institution, and consider, any information the institution may provide about its local community and economy, including community development needs and opportunities, its business strategy, its lending capacity, or information that otherwise assists in the evaluation of the institution.
  1. Review community contact forms prepared by the regulatory agencies to obtain information that assists in the evaluation of the institution. Contact local community, governmental or economic development representatives to update or supplement this information. Refer to the Community Contact Procedures for more detail.
  1. Review the institution's public file and any comments received by the institution or the agency since the last CRA performance evaluation for information that assists in the evaluation of the institution.
  1. By reviewing public evaluations and other financial data, determine whether any similarly situated institutions (in terms of size, financial condition, product offerings, and business strategy) serve the same or similar assessment area(s) and would provide relevant and accurate information for evaluating the institution's CRA performance. Consider, for example, whether the information could help identify:

a. Lending and community development opportunities available in the institution's assessment area(s) that are compatible with the institution's business strategy and consistent with safe and sound banking practices;

b.Constraints affecting the opportunities to make safe and sound retail loans, community development loans, qualified investments and community development services compatible with the institution's business strategy in the assessment area(s); and

c. Successful CRA-related product offerings or activities utilized by other lenders serving the same or similar assessment area(s).

  1. Document the performance context information, particularly community development needs and opportunities, gathered for use in evaluating the institution's performance.

Assessment Area

  1. Review the institution's stated assessment area(s) to ensure that it:

a. Consists of one or more MSAs/MDs or contiguous political subdivisions (i.e., counties, cities, or towns);

b. Includes the geographies where the institution has its main office, branches, and deposit-taking ATMs, as well as the surrounding geographies in which the institution originated or purchased a substantial portion of its loans;

c. Consists only of whole census tracts;

d. Consists of separate delineations for areas that extend substantially across MSA/MD or state boundaries unless the assessment area is in a multi-state MSA/MD;

e. Does not reflect illegal discrimination; and

f. Does not arbitrarily exclude any low- or moderate-income area(s) taking into account the institution's size, branching structure, and financial condition.

  1. If the assessment area(s) does not coincide with the boundaries of an MSA/MD or political subdivision(s), assess whether the adjustments to the boundaries were made because the assessment area would otherwise be too large for the institution to reasonably serve, have an unusual configuration, or include significant geographic barriers.
  1. If the assessment area(s) fails to comply with the applicable criteria described above, develop, based on discussions with management, a revised assessment area(s) that complies with the criteria. Use this assessment area(s) to evaluate the institution's performance, but do not otherwise consider the revision in determining the institution's rating.

Lending, Investment, and Service Tests for Large Retail Institutions

Lending Test

  1. Identify the institution's loans to be evaluated by reviewing:

a.The most recent HMDA and CRA Disclosure Statements, the interim HMDA LAR, and any interim CRA loan data collected by the institution;

b.A sample of consumer loans if consumer lending represents a substantial majority of the institution's business so that an accurate conclusion concerning the institution's lending record could not be reached without a review of consumer loans;

c. Any other information the institution chooses to provide, such as small business loans secured by non-farm residential real estate, home equity loans not reported for HMDA, unfunded commitments, any information on loans outstanding, and loan distribution analyses conducted by or for the institution, including any explanations for identified concerns or actions taken to address them.

  1. Test a sample of loan files to verify the accuracy of data collected and/or reported by the institution. In addition, ensure that:

a.Affiliate loans reported by the institution are not also attributed to the lending record of another affiliate subject to CRA. This can be accomplished by requesting the institution to identify how loans are attributed and how it ensures that all the loans within a given lending category (e.g., small business loans, home purchase loans, motor vehicle, credit card, home equity, other secured, and other unsecured loans) in a particular assessment area are reported for all of the institution's affiliates if the institution elects to count any affiliate loans;

b.Loans reported as community development loans (including those originated or purchased by consortia or third parties) meet the definition of community development loans. Determine whether community development loans benefit the institution's assessment area(s) or a broader statewide or regional area that includes the institution's assessment area(s). Except for multi-family loans, ensure that community development loans have not also been reported by the institution or an affiliate as HMDA, small business or farm, or consumer loans. Review records provided to the institution by consortia or third parties or affiliates to ensure that the amount of the institution's third party or consortia or affiliate lending does not account for more than the institution's percentage share (based on the level of its participation or investment) of the total loans originated by the consortia, third parties, or affiliates;

c.All consumer loans in a particular loan category have been included when the institution collects and maintains the data for one or more loan categories and has elected to have the information evaluated.

  1. Identify the volume, both in number and dollar amount, of each type of loan being evaluated that the institution has made or purchased within its assessment area. Evaluate the institution's lending volume considering the institution's resources and business strategy and other information from the performance context, such as population, income, housing, and business data. Note whether the institution conducts certain lending activities in the institution and other activities in an affiliate in a way that could inappropriately influence an evaluation of borrower or geographic distribution.
  1. Review any analyses prepared by or for and offered by the institution for insight into the reasonableness of the institution's geographic distribution of lending. Test the accuracy of the data and determine if the analyses are reasonable. If areas of low or no penetration were identified, review explanations and determine whether action was taken to address disparities, if appropriate.
  1. Supplement with an independent analysis of geographic distribution as necessary. As applicable, determine the extent to which the institution is serving geographies in each income category and whether there are conspicuous gaps unexplained by the performance context. Conclusions should recognize that institutions are not required to lend in every geography. The analysis should consider:

a.(Excluding affiliate lending) the number, dollar amount, and percentage of the institution's loans located within any of its assessment areas, as well as the number, dollar amount, and percentage of the institution's loans located outside any of its assessment areas;

b.The number, dollar amount, and percentage of each type of loan in the institution's portfolio in each geography, and in each category of geography (low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income);

c.The number of geographies penetrated in each income category, as determined in step (b), and the total number of geographies in each income category within the assessment area(s);

d.The number and dollar amount of its home purchase, home refinancing, and home improvement loans, respectively in each geography compared to the number of one-to-four family owner-occupied units in each geography;

e.The number and dollar amount of multi-family loans in each geography compared to the number of multi-family structures in each geography;

f. The number and dollar amount of small business and farm loans in each geography compared to the number of small businesses/farms in each geography;

g.Whether any gaps exist in lending activity for each income category, by identifying groups of contiguous geographies that have no loans or those with low penetration relative to the other geographies.

  1. If there are groups of contiguous geographies within the institution's assessment area with abnormally low penetration, the examiner may determine if an analysis of the institution's performance compared to other lenders for home mortgage loans (using reported HMDA data) and for small businesses and small farm loans (using data provided by lenders subject to CRA) would provide an insight into the institution's lack of performance in those areas. This analysis is not required, but may provide insight if:

a. The reported loan category is substantially related to the institution's business strategies;

b. The area under analysis substantially overlaps the institution's assessment area(s);

c.The analysis includes a sufficient number and volume of transactions, and an adequate number of lenders with assessment area(s) substantially overlapping the institution's assessment area(s);

d.The assessment area data is free from anomalies that can cause distortions such as dominant lenders that are not subject to the CRA, a lender that dominates a part of an area used in calculating the overall lending, or there is an extraordinarily high level of performance, in the aggregate, by lenders in the institution's assessment area(s).

  1. Using the analysis from step #6, form a conclusion as to whether the institution's abnormally low penetration in certain areas should constitute a negative consideration under the geographic distribution performance criteria of the lending test by considering:

a.The institution's share of reported loans made in low- and moderate-income geographies versus its share of reported loans made in middle- and upper-income geographies within the assessment area(s);

b.The number of lenders with assessment area(s) substantially overlapping the institution's assessment area(s);

c.The reasons for penetration of these areas by other lenders, if any, and the lack of penetration by the institution being examined developed through discussions with management and the community contact process;

d. The institution's ability to serve the subject area in light of (i) the demographic characteristics, economic condition, credit opportunities and demand; and (ii) the institution's business strategy and its capacity and constraints;

e. The degree to which penetration by the institution in the subject area in a different reported loan category compensates for the relative lack of penetration in the subject area; and

f.The degree to which penetration by the institution in other low- and moderate-income geographies within the assessment area(s) in reported loan categories compensates for the relative lack of penetration in the subject area.

  1. Review any analyses prepared by or for and offered by the institution for insight into the reasonableness of the institution's distribution of lending by borrower characteristics. Test the accuracy of the data and determine if the analyses are reasonable. If areas of low or no penetration were identified, review explanations and determine whether action was taken to address disparities, if appropriate.
  1. Supplement with an independent analysis of the distribution of the institution's lending within the assessment area by borrower characteristics as necessary and applicable. Consider factors such as:

a.The number, dollar amount, and percentage of the institution's total home mortgage loans and consumer loans, if included in the evaluation, to low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income borrowers;

b. The percentage of the institution's total home mortgage loans and consumer loans, if included in the evaluation, to low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income borrowers compared to the percentage of the population within the assessment area who are low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income;

c.The number and dollar amount of small loans originated to businesses or farms by loan size of less than $100,000; at least $100,000 but less than $250,000; and at least $250,000 but less than or equal to $1,000,000;

d.The number and amount of the small loans to businesses or farms that had annual revenues of less than $1 million compared to the total reported number and amount of small loans to businesses or farms; and

e.If the institution adequately serves borrowers within the assessment area(s), whether the distribution of the institution's lending outside of the assessment area based on borrower characteristics would enhance the assessment of the institution's overall performance.

  1. Review data on the number and amount of the institution's community development loans. Using information obtained in the performance context procedures, especially with regard to community credit needs and institutional capacity, evaluate the extent, innovativeness, and complexity of community development lending to determine:

a.The extent to which community development lending opportunities have been available to the institution;

b.The institution’s responsiveness to the opportunities for community development lending; and

c.The extent of leadership the institution has demonstrated in community development lending.

  1. Evaluate whether the institution's performance under the lending test is enhanced by offering innovative loan products or products with more flexible terms to meet the credit needs of low-and moderate-income individuals or geographies. Consider:

a. The degree to which the loans serve low- and moderate-income creditworthy borrowers in new ways or loans serve groups of creditworthy borrowers not previously served by the institution; and

b. The success of each product, including number and dollar amount of loans originated during the review period.

  1. Discuss with management the preliminary findings in this section.
  1. Summarize your conclusions regarding the institution's lending performance under the following criteria:

a. Lending activity

b. Geographic distribution

c. Borrower characteristics

d. Community development lending

e. Use of innovative or flexible lending practices.

  1. Prepare comments for the public evaluation and the examination report.

Investment Test